Drunk Drivers

Lycanthrope said:
If you know that you are going to drink alcohol and then drive, you're well aware of what you intend to do.

No-one, at any point, put a gun to such a person's head and forced them to drink and then drive.

That is the only intention that matters and that is the one that makes them criminals.
Click to expand...
It's still not the drunk persons conscious intent or decision to kill someone. The fact that we can all (sober mind you) get behind the wheel of a car (able to average 120km/h), gives us all a degree of "intent" wouldn't you say? The difference here is the level of risk, but more so, it's illegal (against the law) to drive under the influence.
 
Ekstasis said:
It's still not the drunk persons conscious intent or decision to kill someone. The fact that we can all (sober mind you) get behind the wheel of a car (able to average 120km/h), gives us all a degree of "intent" wouldn't you say? The difference here is the level of risk, but more so, it's illegal (against the law) to drive under the influence.
Click to expand...

It's still homicide and no, driving in a responsible manner without anything that can influence your driving abilities is not intent.
 
Ekstasis said:
It's still not the drunk persons conscious intent or decision to kill someone. The fact that we can all (sober mind you) get behind the wheel of a car (able to average 120km/h), gives us all a degree of "intent" wouldn't you say? The difference here is the level of risk, but more so, it's illegal (against the law) to drive under the influence.
Click to expand...

They are aware of what they intend to do. They are aware that it is dangerous and that it has dangerous consequences for those around them. This is before they've even touched a drop.

If you drive recklessly, whether the car is able to go 120km/h or not, you are doing so intentionally and yes, if you harm someone, it is the same as murder.

Intent is the difference between manslaughter and murder. And, "Oops, I didn't know that getting drunk or driving recklessly had the likelihood of killing people" isn't an excuse.
 
supersunbird said:
What about murder "in the heat of the moment", called something else? Or assault where someone dies?
Click to expand...

I think you mean manslaughter. Like I said you will be charged with manslaughter if you kill someone in an accident while intoxicated. You will be having your anus enlarged for an extended period of time. My point is everyone acts as if because manslaughter charges aren't stopping drunk driving incidents then murder charges will. But it's not as if someone has too much to drink and gets behind the wheel thinking "ag, fcck it. Worse case scenario I'll be bubbas bitch for 3 years with good behaviour".

Unless, the extra time is purely punitive. In which case, remember that 15, 20 years ago everyone drove drunk. There wasn't a social stigma against it. You may be considered TOO drunk to drive but very few people would dare point a finger at someone driving after 4 or 5 beers. Your parents, their friends, my parents, everyone drove home a bit pissed on New Years.
I'm not saying it's a bad thing to stigmatize, but let's not go over board. The guy that drives drunk now isn't any less of a good person than our parents were.
 
Lycanthrope said:
:wtf:

I think you've completely lost the plot.
Click to expand...

He's defending his mate, Friedel Roller who after being convicted numerous times on driving under the influence tried to evade the cops once more before killing a dad, a child and injuring another in Hartenbos.
 
Lycanthrope said:
They are aware of what they intend to do. They are aware that it is dangerous and that it has dangerous consequences for those around them. This is before they've even touched a drop.

If you drive recklessly, whether the car is able to go 120km/h or not, you are doing so intentionally and yes, if you harm someone, it is the same as murder.

Intent is the difference between manslaughter and murder. And, "Oops, I didn't know that getting drunk or driving recklessly had the likelihood of killing people" isn't an excuse.
Click to expand...

It doesn't have the likelihood of killing people though. The likelihood goes up but it's not actually the same as playing Russian roulette. The vast majority of drunk drivers never have an accident. And the majority that do don't kill anyone.

It's one of those things where you have a few non drinkers or a few extra responsible people getting on their high horse because it's not something they would do while the majority of people know that driving a bit drunk really isn't that big a deal. Tons of people do it regularly without consequence. It's driving completely **** faced or recklessly that's the real problem.
 
Lycanthrope said:
:wtf:

I think you've completely lost the plot.
Click to expand...
A premeditated decision is exactly that isn't it? The person having his drink at the bar did not consciously decide to go kill someone on the road afterwards. That's all I'm saying - I get your point on this though...he is willing to take the risk basically.
 
Fudzy said:
He's defending his mate, Friedel Roller who after being convicted numerous times on driving under the influence tried to evade the cops once more before killing a dad, a child and injuring another in Hartenbos.
Click to expand...

Oh yes, that ahole (I mean the Friedel guy)...
 
Last edited:
Lycanthrope said:
In South Africa? Where many middle-class generations have grown up with a culture of "Public transport? In South Africa? You must be mad." I don't see that happening even if such an eventuality arose.

People who want to drink and drive will do so regardless. This is exactly why countries with world-class public transport still have drunk drivers. Though you might argue that there are fewer, that may well be true.

What I do know is that people make a choice when they climb into their cars with the intention of going to a pub and having a few drinks. They know what they are planning to do, and they are aware that it is dangerous for themselves and those around them and this is long before anyone can argue that their judgement has been impaired by drink.

It isn't much different to sitting in front of Pick 'n Pay playing with a loaded gun: you know it's dangerous, you know it's not allowed for very good reasons, but you're doing it anyway.

The only thing that will ever do anything to deal with drunk driving is when people take responsibility, grow up and stop acting like snot-nosed brats who think drinking is "cool."

Adults don't need to drink to have fun, and adults certainly don't hop into a car and drive around drunk.

But then, unfortunately "adulthood" doesn't necessarily bring an adult mindset to the table.

Driving drunk is premeditated the moment a sober person picks up a drink knowing that they'll be climbing into a car afterwards.

As far as I'm concerned, if someone gets harmed by it, it's murder.
Click to expand...

Lol. I anticipated your response with my last post. It's not the same thing by a considerable degree of separation.
 
Nick333 said:
It doesn't have the likelihood of killing people though. The likelihood goes up but it's not actually the same as playing Russian roulette. The vast majority of drunk drivers never have an accident. And the majority that do don't kill anyone.

It's one of those things where you have a few non drinkers or a few extra responsible people getting on their high horse because it's not something they would do while the majority of people know that driving a bit drunk really isn't that big a deal. Tons of people do it regularly without consequence. It's driving completely **** faced or recklessly that's the real problem.
Click to expand...

How Dangerous Is Drinking and Driving?
A driver with a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of 0.10 or greater is seven times more likely to be involved in a fatal motor vehicle crash than is a driver who has not consumed alcoholic beverages, and a driver with an alcohol concentration of 0.15 or greater is about 25 times more likely.

Basically, the more you drink the more likely you are to have an accident, and a fatal one. The same applies for the likelihood of having any vehicle accident, fatal or otherwise. Here's the cold hard facts:

More Likely to Have a Crash
A 160-pound person drinking two beers within an hour would probably have a BAC of 0.04, well below the legal limits of driving under the influence, but 1.4 times more likely to have an accident than someone who is sober.

Two more beers? The likelihood of an accident goes up almost tenfold. At .08 BAC, a driver is 11 times more likely than the non-drinking driver to be involved in a crash. As the amount of alcohol in the driver's system rises mathematically on the BAC scale, the likelihood of a traffic accident multiples.

Two more beers? Up to a six-pack now? The likelihood of having an accident is now 48 times higher than the abstainer and the driver has just now passed the 0.10 BAC level.
Click to expand...

The dangers are clear. It has nothing to do with "high horses." It's fact and it involves life or death based on the pathetic inhibitions of a bunch of low-lives with zero willpower, no sense of responsibility and no care or consideration for anyone other than themselves.

I have at no point said that people aren't allowed to drink. The problem comes when those people take their drink to the streets and endanger the public. Keep it at home, or bring a sober friend. It's not complicated.
 
Ekstasis said:
Not making sense. Are you implying then that you completely trust your own capabilities as a sober driver that you will NOT be the cause of a fatal accident?
Click to expand...

You seem to have terrible difficulty understanding risk and responsibility.

Also, why drunk driving can easily be considered murder (intentional and knowing the risks) rather than manslaughter (accidental due to negligence).
 
Lycanthrope said:
You seem to have terrible difficulty understanding risk and responsibility.
Click to expand...
If you go back a few posts then you'll see I understand it very well.

I'm not defending drunk drivers at all. Was just arguing the point on conscious intent, that's it. People should under NO circumstance drive after they've consumed alcohol - happy? :p
 
Ekstasis said:
Not making sense. Are you implying then that you completely trust your own capabilities as a sober driver that you will NOT be the cause of a fatal accident?
Click to expand...

Yes, unless I was doing something reckless, like looking at my passenger while driving or texting while driving or reading a newpaper while driving but I know those increase the risk of a crash (fatal or otherwise) so I dont do it.
 
Lycanthrope said:
The dangers are clear. It has nothing to do with "high horses." It's fact and it involves life or death based on the pathetic inhibitions of a bunch of low-lives with zero willpower, no sense of responsibility and no care or consideration for anyone other than themselves.

I have at no point said that people aren't allowed to drink. The problem comes when those people take their drink to the streets and endanger the public. Keep it at home, or bring a sober friend. It's not complicated.
Click to expand...

Well, I won't bother questioning those stats but really I pretty much guarantee that the vast majority of people with a drivers license has driven over the legal limit at least once. Lock up everyone for attempted murder. Bunch of zero-willpower low lives that they are.
 
supersunbird said:
Yes, unless I was doing something reckless, like looking at my passenger while driving or texting while driving or reading a newpaper while driving but I know those increase the risk of a crash (fatal or otherwise) so I dont do it.
Click to expand...

But we should obviously lock up those who do for attempted murder, surely?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X